ORDER

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage.

2. The present civil revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against order dated 03.10.2023 passed in RCS No.286-A of 2022, by 7th Civil Judge, Senior Division. Bhopal whereby, petitioners application under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the dispute between the parties is prima-facie a commercial dispute as defined under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Commercial dispute is defined under Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act.

(hereinafter referred as “Act”). From bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that all the disputes arising out of an agreement for an immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce is a commercial dispute. It is clear from Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that as per lease dated 01.02.2013, respondent had given suit property on lease to the petitioners for running hospital and allied services.

Respondent has valued the suit as Rs.23,25,780/-. and thus, subject matter of the dispute between the parties is also more than Rs.3,00,000/-as per Section 2(1)(i) read with section 12 of the “Act”. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Section 12(1)(a) of the “Act”.

4. As per Section 6 of the Act, the Commercial Courts will have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the commercial dispute arising in their territory. From bare reading of Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, it is clear that XVIII Civil Judge Senior Division, the designated Commercial Court at Bhopal, will have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In view of above, learned trial Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Learned trial Court has committed illegality in holding that. from bare perusal of first lease agreement dated 26.04.1999, it cannot be concluded that at the time of execution of the said lease deed, the property was used exclusively for trade and commerce. As from bare reading of para-2 and 3 of the plaint, it is abundantly clear that petitioners have always intended to use the leased property for running hospital and same was always impliedly consented by the respondent and thus the parties had absolute meeting of mind as to the use of the suit property for commercial purpose at the time of execution of the lease deed dated 26.04.1999.

5. For the purpose of Commercial Courts Act, it is not only the averments made in the plaint which can be looked into but the entire documents and pleadings of defendant can also be looked into to ascertain the exact nature of the transaction entered into between the parties.

6. Hence, in this case, though there is a clear pleading in the plaint that the suit property was leased out to the petitioners for running hospital (commercial activities) but from the lease deed filed on record and the application filed by the petitioners, it was also apparent that dispute was admittedly a Commercial dispute falling within definition of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act. Scope of Commercial Court Act and Section 6 of the same is much wider than the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners, after referring to Clause-14 of lease agreement, submits that as per above clause, all disputes and differences between the parties arising out of this agreement were required to be referred to arbitration. Before filing present suit, plaintiff has not referred the matter to arbitration.

8. With respect to above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Subrata Kumar Ghose Vs. Ries Limited and Another (2023) SCC Online 165, Jagmohan Behl Vs. State Bank of Indore 2017 SCC Online Del 10706, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF U